07/18/2011 12:30:00 PM EST
Anti-Money Laundering Obligations For Private Funds
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Treasury's
financial intelligence unit has been trying to impose anti-money laundering
obligations on private funds for years. On September 26, 2002, FinCENissued a
notice of proposed rulemaking, proposing to require unregistered investment
companies to establish and implement anti-money laundering programs. (Anti-Money
Laundering Programs for Unregistered Investment Companies, 67 FR 60617 (Sep.
In that notice of proposed rulemaking, FinCEN proposed to
define the term "unregistered investment company" as (1) an issuer that, but
for certain exclusions, would be an investment company as that term is defined
in the Investment Company Act of 1940, (2) a commodity pool, and (3) a
company that invests primarily in real estate and/or interests in real estate.
FinCEN proposed requiring these companies to file a notice so that FinCEN could
readily identify such companies and require them to establish and implement
anti-money laundering programs.
I think most real estate fund managers and other private
fund managers keep an eye on the parties to see if there is a reason to be wary
and to see if they on the Specially
Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List. But I had some concern that
FinCENy could extend the "know your customer" rules deep into transactions,
imposing lots of administrative overhead for little benefit.
In November of 2008, FinCEN filed a notice of Withdrawal of
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Anti-Money Laundering Programs for
Unregistered Investment Companies . In that notice, FinCEN stated that they
were not abandoning the possibility of pursing the rulemaking. Given the six
year span since the notice, they feel it has gone stale. If (or when) they
decide to proceed with an anti-money laundering program requirement for
unregistered investment companies, they will publish a new notice.
The "when" seems to be coming closer.
Senator Levin introduced the Stop
Tax Haven Abuse Act. Section 203 of that bill would require the Department
of Treasury to require
unregistered investment companies, including hedge funds
or private equity funds, to establish anti-money laundering programs and submit
suspicious activity reports under subsections (g) and (h) of section 5318 of
title 31, United States Code.
The bill defines an "unregistered investment company" as
one that would be an investment company but is exempt under 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7).
Hedge funds may be an attractive source for
money-laundering (I'm not sure), but private equity can't be very enticing.
Cash is called as investments are made over the course of the investment period
and then slowly returned as investments are realized. I don't generally think
of terrorists and drug lords as patient capital sources.
Nonetheless, most private equity fund managers I've
talked to investigate the background of their investors. It's a long term
relationship on both sides and managers don't want to have the headache of having
a bad investor. The repercussions of having a blocked-person would be
tremendous, both from the legal fallout as well as the damage to the sponsor's
reputation. Most lenders require the fund to warrant that there are no blocked
persons in their funds.
The Levin bill would technically leave out real estate
fund companies, assuming they are taking advantage of the 3(c)(5) exemption. I
sense more regulatory overhead approaching.
additional commentary on developments in compliance and ethics, visit Compliance Building,
a blog hosted by Doug Cornelius.
For more information about LexisNexis
products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.